Selected ethical issues in research and publication: perceptions of health education faculty

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Ethics and Industry Interactions: Impact on Specialty Training, Clinical Practice, and Research

Physicians in training and their mentors must be cognizant of ethical concerns related to industry interactions. Mentors perceived to have conflicts of interest or to be engaging in misconduct can unconsciously and profoundly affect the learning and academic environment by implying certain values and expectations. Despite increased awareness of ethical concerns related to industry interactions in clinical practice and research, there remains a need for interventions to prevent ethical transgressions. Ethics education is essential and a move in the right direction, but it alone is likely inadequate in preventing unethical behavior. Education should be supplemented with ethical environments at institutions.

Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads?

We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.

Perceptions of nursing faculty regarding ethical issues in nursing research

A major premise of any research activity is that ethical conduct will be identified and observed during the research process. Yet a comprehensive review of the nursing literature failed to find any research assessing nurses' perceptions of ethical issues related to authorship, publication, reporting results, or funding. This study assessed nursing faculty members' perceptions of ethical scenarios related to the areas of authorship, publication, reporting results, and funding. A 34-item questionnaire, consisting of ethical issues related to research, was mailed to a national random sample of nursing faculty who were teaching at graduate degree-granting institutions. A three-wave mailing was used to maximize response rate. A total of 388 nurses responded to the survey (77.6% response rate). Less than half of the respondents reported that content included in their curriculum was related to the issues under study. Respondents' perceptions of the ethical scenarios varied. A majority of the respondents considered six of the scenarios ethical, eight unethical, one questionable, and one not an ethical issue. Five of the scenarios received widely varied responses. Faculty members who had chaired student dissertations found three questionnaire items significantly (p < .05) more unethical than faculty members who had not chaired dissertations. Faculty teaching in programs in which the highest degree offered was a doctorate found two items unethical significantly more often than faculty teaching at programs in which the highest degree offered was a master's degree. Results of this study demonstrate the potential that students are not being taught necessary issues related to ethical authorship and publication practices. Faculty members themselves may not have had the education needed to educate their own students in the area of research ethics.

Ethics in exercise science research

Ethical evaluation is a vital but sometimes neglected component of research policy in the exercise sciences. This article reviews some issues in human research, with particular reference to studies undertaken by the exercise scientist. The typical composition and functions of the research review committee are examined in the context of individual and institutional ethical norms. In multicentre trials, there are often problems in coordinating ethical approval between institutions. On-going monitoring of research may have value in the detection of fraud. A reduction in the secrecy of committee proceedings would allow a closer auditing of the research review process. Authors need to give more thought to developing appropriate research questions. Scarce resources may be wasted because of inappropriate study design or an inadequate statistical analysis of the results. The costs of any proposed investigation must be weighed carefully against possible benefits. Confidentiality is particularly important when collecting data at the worksite or over the internet. Informed consent should be based on a full disclosure of risks; the participant should be competent to understand the nature and magnitude of these risks, and undue pressure to participate in an experiment must be avoided. The opposition to placebo trials expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki requires careful consideration of the use of control groups, since regular exercise is known to benefit health. If research is conducted in under-developed societies, the standards of treatment of the participants should match those expected in developed societies. The publication of findings must be fair and well balanced; examples of fraud and misconduct continue to be reported. Some journals apparently still publish papers, even if they have not received an initial institutional review. Editors should restore meaning to the word 'author', avoid the bias to a publication of 'positive' results, limit the impact of commercial sponsorship on reporting and curtail the current trend to redundant presentations and publications. Development of academic courses in research ethics may help to avoid some of these abuses.